↓ Skip to main content

Tenosynovitis caused by Scedosporium apiospermum infection misdiagnosed as an Alternaria species: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Tenosynovitis caused by Scedosporium apiospermum infection misdiagnosed as an Alternaria species: a case report
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-016-2098-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Choon-Mee Kim, Sung-Chul Lim, Joa Kim, Hoe-Soo Jang, Jong-Hun Chung, Na-Ra Yun, Dong-Min Kim, Piyush Jha, Babita Jha, Seok Won Kim, Sook Jin Jang, Jong Hee Shin

Abstract

Scedosporium apiospermum, which can usually be isolated from soil, polluted stream water and decaying vegetation, is increasingly recognized as an opportunistic dematiaceous fungus. The mortality rate of infection in immunocompromised hosts is over 50%. S. apiospermum is commonly responsible for dermal and epidermal infections (i.e., mycetoma) after traumatic penetration. A 73-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital complaining of painful swelling and tenderness on the dorsum of the proximal left wrist and hand. The symptoms had persisted for approximately 2 months. A physical examination revealed a 4 x 3 cm, poorly defined, erythematous papule, which was fluctuant, with pustules and crusts on the dorsum of the left hand. We report a very rare case of tenosynovitis caused by S. apiospermum infection. We identified the infectious agent via molecular DNA sequencing. The infectious agent was initially misidentified as an Alternaria species by microscopic examination with lactophenol cotton blue (LPCB) staining. The infection was successfully treated with debridement and adjuvant fluconazole therapy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 36%
Other 2 18%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Researcher 1 9%
Student > Postgraduate 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 9%
Chemical Engineering 1 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 February 2017.
All research outputs
#7,804,449
of 9,003,777 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,555
of 3,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,446
of 309,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#111
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,003,777 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,986 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.